caulfield12

Obviously, someone's going to say we should have signed Beltre and R. Soriano, since we're living in an alternative universe here. 2006 should serve as evidence that too much tinkering and roster turnover, no matter how good it all looks on paper, isn't always the magic answer either. KHP provided a pretty good summary of the current state of the team...obviously, there's concern about a Konerko falloff, 3B, Pierre and Teahen, Santos pitching like the first 3-4 months of 2010, the bullpen in general (how it will all come together in terms of consistent roles if we can't find ONE permanent closer for the back end) and the fifth starter's role. Every team in baseball has a similar laundry list of question marks, many much longer than ours. There's no glaring hole like CF in 2009 or DH coming into 2010, at least there's that.

I thought Fathom was Mr. Pessimism? At this point. I'd make us slight favorites over the Twins, depending on what ends up being the Twins' final starting rotation and any bullpen additions in the next 3 months to their roster. I'm not as excited as in 2001 or 2006, largely because Peavy's a huge question mark and I'm still not convinced about the bullpen. I think we need a major contribution from Jake to take the division. We also have either a hole in the bullpen (if Sale's starting) or a very iffy stopgap for an indeterminate period of time which could end up reminding many of our 5th starter issues from 2001-2004. We're all projecting Konerko to come back down to earth, which essentially leaves it up to Rios, Beckham and Quentin to determine how good this team will eventually become. And I'm really interested in seeing who ends up with the most AB's at 3B this season, Morel, Vizquel, Viciedo or Teahen.

Other than Jon Rauch, Swisher, Sean Tracey, Orlando Cabrera....and maybe Thome after what was said in the middle of the season last year (but I still doubt it), how many former White Sox players wouldn't come back to Chicago? Obviously, Jenks wanted to stay, that's why he felt "hurt" to be dumped, although when you're talking about a professional athlete making millions (or like Jermaine Dye being "insulted" by the offers he received) it's all relative I suppose. It's not like we have spent a boatload of money on free agents during the KW tenure. For all the negative comments and "worst manager" things, there's a long list of players like Griffey, Sandy Alomar, Vizquel, etc., who have nothing but positive words for the Sox. Omar is one of the most highly-respected players in the game, easily top five. Despite what may or may not have happened in the clubhouse the last 2-3 seasons, it speaks a lot that he came back. Andruw Jones had no issues playing under Ozzie that we know of....heck, veteran players like Erstad, Kotsay, Mackowiak, etc., love to play under Ozzie because he follows the "baseball code" of giving the veterans (like Jenks again) get the benefit of the doubt. Still, he's given Beckham, Sale and Viciedo plenty of chances to prove themselves when they shined....and stuck with Beckham and perhaps handled his slump as well last year as any manager or front office possibly could have with all the pressure on Gordon. And think of all the players like AJ, Konerko and Buehrle who have stuck around all these years. A lot of the players we shed like Lofton, Ordonez, Carlos Lee or D'Angelo Jimenez were simply really bad fits in the end with this organization winning a championship. I'd like to think KW has learned that talent doesn't always win out...that chemistry and intangibles/character are just as important. But they've taken chances with players like Thornton, Loaiza, Wil Cordero (yikes), Dye, Ellis Burks, Bo Jackson, Jenks, Sergio Santos, Hermanson, El Duque, AJ....this list of players who've had a second or third life with Chicago is immense. And players like Pods were basically worshipped when they were on the South Side (because of 2005) and consequently were welcomed back by many fans with open arms. Aaron Rowand, Carl Everett, Frank Thomas, Joe Crede or Brian Anderson could be placed on the roster again and quite a few Sox fans would be elated.

But can't you also make the argument that the Swisher/Mariotti/blow-up doll/Cabrera stories in 2008 took focus away from the players and placed it squaely on Ozzie...? That a team that really had no business making the playoffs was possibly helped as much as 2010's team was distracted? In the end, was that distraction enough to keep us from beating Minnesota? What if Jenks never even pitched for the 2010 White Sox and we spent his $7.5 million on a DH and/or a couple of relievers in the Crain/Guerrier/Rauch mold? If we would have had Thome (and Minnesota NOT had him when Morneau went down) and then fill-in-the-blank reliever/s, it's easy to say in hindsight we would have been better off cutting the cord one year earlier before this all played out the way it did.

I wonder if any legal ramifications could possibly come out of the assault allegations in Arizona? Probably past the statute of limitations? It's really interesting to many because of the confluence of all these new "social networking/high tech" factors, it becomes even bigger than just a sports story. Can Jenks sue Oney for libel/slander and win? Even if everything Oney said is true...and Jenks is definitely a public persona, so the standard is different according to the Supreme Court. As a White Sox fan, I'm not as disappointed with Ozzie here as most. If anything, he bent over backwards to keep supporting Jenks when all signs pointed the other direction. How many times did he remove him from the closer's role only to put him back out there again....2 or 3 times last season. It was almost a joke because you never really believed Ozzie was capable of pulling the plug with Bobby. So I understand Oney being upset about the criticism about not being able to handle a bullpen...there's a huge body of evidence that Ozzie's pretty damned good at that aspect of baseball, maybe one of his greatest strengths. For one, I don't think the White Sox lost the ALCD because of Jenks...but it will the convenient story line now "well, if only Bobby's personal life hadn't spun out of control, we would have won the division in 2010, etc." We just weren't quite good enough, all the way down to the Manny Ramirez acquisition. I'll echo what others have said here. Ozzie and his son bleed black and silver. The idea of someone like Buddy Bell or Cito Gaston defending the organization in a similar situation is laughable. Yes, the "company response" line would have been more appropriate, put out by you typical PR team. Still, it's refreshing that Ozzie ISN'T Bill Belichick. He has his own unique personality, but, in the end, he wants to win just as much as anyone and probably even more because of his connection to the owner, team and fans. In my opinion, all of this stuff was pretty common knowledge around the team. There aren't very many secrets. When I was working for the Pirates, before we even saw Jose Guillen at the A ball (Augusta level), I'd heard a few stories about Jose Guillen that would make the clubby allegation seem like shoplifting. Everyone in the Pirates' organization covered up for him because they knew his talent and potential even then...it's just that 09 and 10, the days of defending and supporting Bobby weren't vindicated by a high enough level of success on the field, where he no longer was worth protecting and coddling to the detriment of the team. I'm sure most of the players in that clubhouse are glad he's gone and perhaps a little light on the dark situation provides insight into the dysfunction of the clubhouse/chemisty over the last couple of seasons.

QUOTE (gatnom @ Dec 25, 2010 -> 08:41 PM) I agree to a degree, but what else was he supposed to ask for beyond Viciedo? Perhaps I don't remember the rumors properly, but I think the final rumor was Jackson + Viciedo for Dunn? I know I wouldn't agree to any deal centered around Tyler Flowers. I think my overall point with our farm system is that it should be a lot better than what it is based upon our payroll. You could get a LOT of impact talent for the money you blow on players like Mark Teahen and Scott Linebrink. This is true, but I'll take any other team in the majors and comb through their payroll for the last 5-7 years and find MANY more players with horrible contracts than KW has been saddled with...just look at the Cubs. Basically, we have/had Teahen, Pierre (arguable), Linebrink (he still was a major part of 2008 team, so you can't say that money was a complete bust like A. Jones in LA with the Dodgers), MacDougal and then Contreras and Konerko at different points over the last half-decade. Now, you might argue Peavy as well, although we really don't know 100% of the behind-the-scenes insurance implications with that contract. You can take the Royals, Cubs, Indians, Tigers (just these last two seasons) and we'll find some atrocious deals that eclipse what KW has done. Livan Hernandez, Adam Everett, Mike Lamb, Brett Boone, Jeff Cirillo, Tony Batista, Phil Nevin, Ruben Sierra, RonDL White, Craig Monroe...just to name a few of the Twins' bonehead moves. They've had more than their share of stinkers. No GM is perfect. You can make the argument that if the Twins would have gone "all in" one of those seasons (2002-2004/2006/2009/2010) and taken all the money going to veteran "stopgaps" and invested that money in a superstar player to put them over the top or traded some of their quality minor league depth (like they finally did for Capps at mid-season), they'd have a lot more to show for themselves in the post-season.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 25, 2010 -> 06:30 PM) What it does do, assuming the rest of baseball agrees with this analysis, is handcuffs them for midseason additions in 2011 unless some of these guys play a lot better. Alsi assuming they will be at the mark they cannot add salary, and with not much impressive talent to deal, it will be next to impossible to acquire anything major during the season without giving up a big piece of your current team. But they do have Viciedo, and the possibility of Flowers, Phegley and Jordan Danks rebounding (at least one of the 3). A lot of scouts are intrigued with T. Thompson, Escobar and Infante/Carter. Combine that with some of the starting pitching from the last two drafts having a Daniel Hudson, Brandon McCarthy or DeLosSantos "breakout" season and you still have enough to trade for an impact player without killing yourself or subtracting from the MLB roster. Sox pretty much have to keep Mitchell to replace Pierre eventually, and the jury's still out with Viciedo fitting into the future picture or not.

I just watched the first True Grit and am hard-pressed to see how John Wayne won the Oscar. I think it was more of one of those "lifetime" accumulation things, where he won a single Oscar based on his entire body of work...and he also was recovering from cancer at that time. You can see how they chose Damon (Glenn Campbell in first film) and Bridges, though. Great fits. It took me a couple of minutes to recognize Robert Duvall as one of the main outlaws/villains in the first version...he's had a long body of work all the way back to To Kill a Mockingbird (boo radley). Very disappointing Christmas for movies. Gulliver's Travels, Tron, How Do You Know?(R. Witherspoon/James Brooks), Chronicles of Narnia and the new Fockers movie have all been ravaged and savaged by critics. There's still The Fighter, The Black Swan, 127 Hours, True Grit, The King's Speech and looking forward to Blue Valentine and Somewhere by Sofia Coppola about Chateau Marmont and Hollywood dissolution...although not a big Stephen Dorff fan, I do like her style. All Good Things....forgot how pretty Kirsten Dunst can be, and Ryan Gosling continue to stretch his versatility as an actor...one of those amazing true-life stories that somehow seem stranger than fiction, and Frank Langella was great as always

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 24, 2010 -> 01:00 PM) Excellent post. I don't think I disagree with anything you said. I don't know how many times I have to say that I don't want a team that features 25 homegrown players. But why can't we be like or close to the Red Sox or Phillies? Teams that have proven you can have a productive farm and be competitive at the same time. We're the Chicago White Sox. Not the Florida or Pittsburgh White Sox. Why can't we devote more to scouting, draft and player development? Why can't we go over slot every now and then? All I'm saying is the philosophy we've adopted during the KW era has produced 2 playoff appearances in 10 years. In our division, that it not acceptable. You can come up with a billion excuses. But in this business, that doesn't fly. IMO, 2011 is absolutely HUGE. If we come up short to the Twins again, that's f***ing enough for me. Either get rid of the manager and staff or change the philosophy or something. Enough is enough. It's fine to say we should model ourselves after the Phillies, although with only one team in that market...or even St. Louis, another "model" franchise, I'm not sure that I buy that. I prefer to look at the Angels, because they're the "second tier" team in a major market (like the Sox) and they've won a World Series this decade and have also made some inroads in taking SOME market share back from the Dodgers, and/or creating a new market of fans with marketing/promotions and simply winning. Clearly, the Angels have had a "good to great" minor league system over much of that time, but, as someone pointed out in another thread, 90% of those guys have either failed to live up to the their promise, gotten injured or they're no longer with the team. I remember all the Reggie Willits discussions the last couple of offseasons. Wood has been a disaster. McPherson, Kotchmann, Kendrick is usually hurt, Morales hasn't stayed healthy, Weaver has been very good but Santana regressed, etc. Then Angels have basically had to do the same thing as the White Sox (making shrewd FA acquisitions and trades) while spending more money to do it. More of a cushion. We also were unfortunate with players like Jenks and Crede we couldn't maximize their value and trade them while they still had worth to other organizations that would net us something promising in return. As pointed out, replacing Pierre with DeAza and Quentin with Viciedo or Gartrell wouldn't be the best...but we all know Dayan has a ton of ability IF IF IF he ever puts it all together. Apparently enough that KW held off on pulling the trigger with a trade in 2010 during the season. With Hudson, we'll see if he's another Brandon McCarthy or ends up becoming an All-Star in the NL. Sure, if he pitched the same for the White Sox, it would have been great...just like it would have been great if Kip Wells or Josh Fogg had done the same, but we'll never know. The huge negative with mixing players from so many organizations together is that they don't play together in the minors, bond and learn how to win a couple of minor league championships with 3-4-5 players all coming up at the same time as part of a "wave" of talent. One of the biggest disappointments has been player development and progression at both the major and minor league levels, especially the last 10 years. We've had numerous arguments about Bell and Ozzie and our team's lack of fundamental/small ball skills, and why that has happened. Ozzie focuses on it occasionally with his "mini-camps" and "back to basics" lectures and then it all goes out the window once the season begins. Then he asks players to do things they're simply not confident enough or capable enough to do, like Brian Anderson or Josh Fields being a "small ball" guy and hitting to the right side, etc. Not having a consistent organizational philosophy (The Twins' Way, the Butler Way, the UCLA Way under Wooden) that starts from the time of drafting all the way up to their first rookie at bat or pitch has partially caused some of our disappointments, particularly 2003, 2006 and 2010. Of course, the counter-argument is that the Twins and A's never did anything more than win one first round playoff series, both against each other...for all their organizational development, drafting, trades and acquisitions, best-selling books and "copy cats" and maximization of budgetary outlays.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 23, 2010 -> 07:24 PM) Daft Punk did the soundtrack, that is probably why you were asked. Personally, I am not going to judge Tron after watching it on my PC, I want the full IMAX 3D experience before I say a word about it. However my buddy, who is on my blacklist at the moment for going to see it without me, told me it is awesome and he was a big fan of the original like me I'm also not sure it was the wisest idea to have Jeff Bridges do kind of a spin off of the Dude character from Big Lebowski...I guess it seems to fit him though, and gave it a bit more personality than playing it straight. As an ultimate frisbee fan, anything that boosts the popularity of frisbee, discs or Aerobies is okay with me. And I'm sure Ducati must have spent some big-time coin using it as a marketing tool. Made me almost want to go out and buy a motorcycle, that and the new Wall Street movie. They had another vehicle whic evoked a simpler version of Batman's Tumbler that will be popular the kids too I think.

Tron soundtrack? I laughed when I heard Journey's "Separate Hearts", thinking back to 2005 again. Actually of all the Journey songs, that's one of the few I actually sort of liked...fast beat, kind of a driving rhythm comparing to their other ballady stuff. More like a STYX song, haha. The other song I remember vividly was Eurythmics...since it was supposed to evoke 1982, those were 2 good choices. I enjoy electronic/techno music, and there were some interesting choices interspersed. Actually, Social Network might have the best soundtrack to fit the film...the Trent Reznor project he worked on for quite some time to get it exactly right.

Don't forget his compelling work in "Dead Man Walking" as Sean Penn's brother, haha. That has to count for something.

QUOTE (Felix @ Dec 23, 2010 -> 03:50 PM) Tropic Thunder was an awesome, awesome movie. Robert Downey Jr is great. I like Academy/Sundance/Cannes movies as much as the next guy, but I really enjoyed this film (like the lines about playing "full retard" I thought that was clever in an "insidery Hollywood" way in that entertainment insiders had to love that movie, like THE PLAYER)...I think there's a certain type of movie that it's popular to dismiss and then people join the bandwagon for or against it based on what critics say. With that movie, it was 'cool' again to appreciate Tom Cruise for making fun of himself, I think it went at least halfway to him rehabilitating his image somewhat in the industry...not sure about most Americans though. No matter what over the top character he plays, he can never beat Frank TJ Mackey from Magnolia. Jay Baruchel is annoying...but usually I find something enjoyable or interesting about any Downey Jr. performance, even though I wouldn't say he's one of my all-time favorites, I guess I appreciate his talent/ability to push the boundaries and limits, both personally and professionally. Even if you don't like him, he's (so far) done a great job of coming back from near death literally and career-wise. Like Pirates with Depp, Iron Man put him on the map for a lot of movie-going fans who weren't so familiar with his entire body of work. For another example, HOT TUB TIME MACHINE. I really enjoyed that too, and yet most "intellectual" critics rejected it for obvious reasons.

Saw Tron... It was about like what the rating at rotten tomatoes is....almost can't give it a thumbs up or thumbs down, in between. I would say, it was worth my time to watch probably. In some ways, the special effects were a little disappointing, although I watched on PC and not in theatre, so that makes a big difference. There were some really cool action sequences and then the move kind of got bogged down in the middle with too much philosophy. I liked Olivia Wilde's character and her futuristic costumes at least. She was more than just eye candy, she was an actual interesting feminine role who was in some ways the centerpiece of the story intellectually and emotionally. Michael Sheen was also excellent.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 23, 2010 -> 03:23 PM) Going to see Black Swan this weekend. Looking forward to it. I've yet to be disappointed by Aranofsky. You honestly liked THE FOUNTAIN? It was ambitious, I'll give him that....and very "interesting" to watch in some parts, but I'd be hard pressed to say it wasn't disappointing on many levels.

What about School of Rock? I thought that was actually a pretty good one...

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 05:43 PM) That doesn't matter. Having all one thing or all the other, or some of this and some of that - as has been the case in Kansas City for decades - doesn't matter. You still don't have enough to win unless you have enough to win. And even if you were to do something pretty incredible, like have Mike Sweeney, Carlos Beltran, Jermaine Dye, and Johnny Damon all young, productive, and under contract, it doesn't mean you'll get enough around them to do anything. You're straight up BSing when you say they've never had talent like that before. Check that paragraph above the one I'm writing now. You are overrating the holy s*** out of their prospects if you're going to look at some of the players who have gone through that organization during all that losing and say a few unproven prospects that they have now are going to be better. They will likely produce some guys who were supposed to be good, others will get hurt or bust out, others will come from nowhere and end up overachievers, others will end up decent bench pieces. Mark Teahen is garbage and he was there future. Alex Gordon isn't anything and he was there future. Prospects who haven't proven anything haven't proven anything. Just because one prospect didn't make it doesn't mean another one won't either, but you can't assume a high success rate when there is none. I do agree with you on the last part though. The only way the Royals will ever do jack s*** in their division is if they identify core pieces and then make deals for proven MLB players to complement what they have. Until they show the desire to spend in FA and move their great prospects they're going to suck. And the good or great players that they do produce are going to come through a losing environment and end up shipped off for very little in return. Nothing about Dayton Moore however tells me he is capable of building a solid cast of MLB regulars to support a strong core on a budget. He makes some of the dumbest moves you see in the entire division, year after year. Assuming Dayton Moore can do anything at all for that franchise is an assumption more or less based on nothing IMO. Lots of guys come out of great systems and still can't do s*** with what they inherit. The Fields+Getz for Teahen move is the last KC move I can remember that I actually liked for the Royals. The Royals really did a crappy job of maximizing the returns on Beltran, Damon and Dye...and they held on to Mike Sweeney past the expiration date (because he WAS the franchise and favorite son, more popular in KC than Konerko in Chicago even) and didn't get anything for him in return. Of course, you can look at their list of first round draft pick busts since the late 80/early 90's and you start to see a terrifying (for Royals' fans) trend emerging, especially with high draft picks going on pitchers who ultimately would make the 1998-2000 White Sox draft classes look like they produced a veritable bounty of quality contributors. The other thing that really hurt them was the complete disintegration of Angel Berroa and Carlos Febles (one half of "Dos Carlos") up the middle. And, one of the few starters they did actually did develop internally, Jose Rosado, became an All-Star and then saw his career self-destruct due to injuries.

I think Winter's Bone and True Grit (from everything I've read) both deserve acting nominations for their youngish heroines. When you watch Winter's Bone, you might as well be watching The Road or Book of Eli, but the characters in that story are incredibly vivid. They really stay with you...as opposed to movies like Red, for example. Monsters=Thumbs up, not as great as some have written, but definitely made the wise choice of not overposing the "creatures" until closer to the end...but nothing like Signs in terms of a hokey/outlandish ending

Or Sergio Santos, we go with the more traditional RH closer...and keep Thornton/Sale as our own two-headed version of Joel Zumaya that can be used in high leverage situations anytime between the 6th and 8th.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010...ball&st=cse I tried to download part of the "case study" that's linked here, but my ADOBE/PDF has a bug....maybe someone else can post anything germane to Ozzie from that article?

I know I will watch Black Swan again....not just for the two "bed" scenes (lol) but because I think I must have missed out on a lot of "was it real or wasn't it?" that will make complete sense the 2nd time around knowing where the ending is going from the beginning. It's not like Inception or Memento, but it is the type of movie you could watch many times over and over in future years, and not simply because Natalie Portman is beautiful in it (or in anything she does for that matter).

Where does Ozzie rank with that Bill James model? I think with Pythagorean (which is another very questionable and simplistic model) he and Gardenhire are almost the same...at least until the last couple of seasons. I would imagine a lot of Sox fans would rather have Gardenhire, and at least 50% of Twins' fans think Gardy isn't the guy "to get to the next level" but that's he is a very good manager, overall.

Q.The highest-paid managers get paid multiples less than the highest-paid players. J.C., do you come up with estimates on the value of managers? More specifically, if you were the agent for the best manager in MLB (whomever you think that is), could you argue that manager pay should be doubled? – Barbara A.If I had added another chapter to the book, it would have been on the value of managers. In fact, my most recent project involved quantifying the impact that managers have on players, looking at how player performance changed under different managers. Though I found a few managers who had “statistically significant” effects on their players (positive and negative), no manager helped both hitters and pitchers. I estimated the impact of several factors on performance, and when I compared models that included managers versus those that did not, there was very little impact. In summary, managers appear to have very little effect on baseball player performance, and this really shouldn’t be surprising given that most of baseball involves one-on-one contests between hitters and pitchers. This then leads to the question: why do some teams pay managers big salaries if they are not important? I have a theory that teams use managers to signal to fans that they are improving. If your team is struggling, you can’t quickly replace a roster of 25 guys and improve overnight. Managers can be quickly replaced; thus, if fans perceive that managers do impact performance — even if they don’t — then teams can falsely signal improvement to fans. Fans who would otherwise stay at home now go to the ballpark. I tested this hypothesis for the past three decades by examining how attendance changed after replacing a manager. In the 2000s, I found that managerial replacements led to an increased attendance of about 1,000 fans per game. I did not observe similar effects in the 1990s and 1980s, though. It’s unclear why the effect is observed more recently, but not in the past. Maybe the growth in fandom in the present has produced more sensitive fans, but it’s hard to know. You can read my working paper here. Q.I’m having more and more trouble nowadays discussing baseball with my cousin, as he’s the type who would hear the words “valuation model” and immediate attempt to dismiss any of the following points. I’m sure you encounter this too. How do you react to this? – Katie A.Well, I understand this reaction, and though I think about baseball a little more intensely than most of my baseball-fan friends, I find most people are just as interested in the same issues I am. The difference is the language that stat-savvy (or sabermetric) fans often try to force on others. While I use terms like marginal revenue product and OPS in my own work, I also try and explain these concepts in a familiar lexicon. For example, let’s say your grandfather complains about Adam Dunn’s .250 batting average, high strikeouts and horrible defense. If you respond, well he’s got a .900 OPS, which more than makes up for his strikeouts and bad defense, and his MRP is $12 million, he’ll spit tobacco in your eye (or at least mine would). Instead, you could say, “Well, while he doesn’t hit for average, he gets on base a lot with walks, and when he does get on he normally gets further than first base. When you look at all the things he does and how that translates into winning, and the revenue that teams get from winning, his worth is about $12 million to the bottom line.” You just explained OPS and MRP without the terms. There is nothing in sabermetrics than cannot be explained in everyday baseball language. Q.The Mets’ poor performance each of the past few years can’t be blamed on a low payroll, as they are almost always at the top of the list in terms of team payroll. They have to be at the top of your list of the most poorly run franchises in Chapter 6, right? I haven’t read the book yet but had to ask. – Mitch A.Right at the top of the list of the worst-managed teams of the 2000s. Not only did the Mets spend a lot, they didn’t win much either. The Mets problem is easy to identify: The Mets have a habit of signing high-dollar stars rather than focusing on building a better internal scouting structure. The Mets have developed some good prospects, but they have a penchant for buying players when they are expensive. Some examples of bad contracts include signing Oliver Perez to a three-year, $36 million contract in 2009, signing Francisco Rodriguez to a three-year, $37 million contract in 2009, and signing Luis Castillo to a four-year, $25 million contract in 2008. In 2010, the team was not ready to contend yet signed Jason Bay to a four-year, $66 million deal. Both Bay and Rodriguez were also huge disappointments in 2010. I think it’s fun to compare the strategies of the Mets and the Twins, whom I find to be the second best-managed team in the 2000s (the best was the Oakland A’s, but I think that team has been covered enough). During the last decade, the Twins averaged $32 million more in playing value than they doled out in player salaries, while the Mets paid out an average of $25 million more than they received in playing value. Before the 2008 season, the Mets acquired via trade and then signed former Twins star Johan Santanta when his performance was at its peak. Though he has been quite good for the Mets, the Twins had no problem winning and avoided paying the ace starter almost $23 million/year for six years. In the three seasons since, the Twins have made the playoffs twice, and the Mets have missed the post-season every year. How did the Twins do it? The key to success lies in acquiring young talent when the collective bargaining rules allow teams to pay players far less than their market value. For their first six years of big-league service, the salaries that players receive are restricted by MLB’s Collective Bargaining Agreement. The Twins exploited these rules by developing talent within their organization, while the Mets concentrated on bringing already-developed talent in. Comparing their 2010 rosters, the Twins drafted 21 of their players, which is equal to the number of players the Mets had signed as free agents. By building a strong farm system, the Twins have been able to survive with young and cheap talent. The Mets’ market size ought to give them an advantage that allows them to sign better players, but the spending strategy the club has adopted clearly hasn’t worked. If the Mets had adopted the Twins’ method of operation — spending far less for players than they receive in playing value — they might be the most valuable franchise in sports. I thought this was interesting, although pretty basic analysis. Coming into 2011, we'll have Morel, Viciedo (maybe), Beckham, Ramirez, Buehrle, Sale, maybe a reliever like Infante...so maybe just 5 players we drafted ourselves and then Viciedo/Ramirez. nytimes.com (freakonomics)

Black Swan....really called to mind Requiem for a Dream and Pi, where someone is straddling the boundaries between greatness and insanity, a wonderful picture that was beautiful to watch, Natalie Portman definitely deserves all the praise she's getting for this role. I also thought Barbara Hershey in the "Mommie Dearest" role brought a lot to her role, you could definitely understand having a mother living out her dreams through her child, the pressure to be the prima ballerina and stay on top, the juxtaposition of the Winona Ryder character with Lilly rising from seemingly out of nowhere to challenge her after Nina put years into the company. I'm not a huge ballet fan, or opera for that matter, it's something I've learned to appreciate rather than love innately, but Aronofsky made ballet interesting, which isn't easy to do, to take a classical ballet and make it accessible from a "behind the scenes POV" to a mainstream audience.

LOL. I'm going to watch Black Swan this morning on the computer, although the scenes with Amanda Seyfried and Julianne Moore in CHLOE were pretty hot too...not quite like Naomi Watts and Laura Harring in Mulholland Drive. That's still the best all-time "mainstream" girl-girl make out, although Neve Campbell-Denise Richards probably rates as the most famous in Wild Things. Should we have a poll? Joking...I'm trying to think of any other possible contenders. Maybe it's because I just saw Forgetting Sarah Marshall for the first time, but Mila Kunis is one of those actresses that just seem like they would actually be really cool and not all diva-ish and b****y in real life. I know one thing, she's super short...plus I have a weak spot for the Russian/Ukrainian look. Or Demi Moore in Striptease? Was there a scene like that with Gina Gerson? Can't remember anymore. SOLITARY MAN--Michael Douglas, another great movie, kind of startling to see Jesse Eisenberg as an introverted geek NOT named Mark Zuckerberg in this one